I've been there. If you are like me, you'll be back. By the way, if you have trouble paying the bills, by the way, just find a code-for-profit gig. There are some where you do open source, but they are hard to come by. Many OSS devs also do code on proprietary projects for money, that's fine.

Yes, developing open source feels like being the sucker. We pour time in for free, we only get user complaints in return, and people take our work and turn them into money machines without sharing a cent. Then why do it?

Because in the end, open source projects are what remains, what's there to stay. Companies milk the cow and drive it to the slaughterhouse when the milk starts drying up. Sure, Microsoft can put 100x more dev time than the minetest community can provide, but they have to spend that time on things that are easy to monetize. Skins, microtransactions, graphics overhaul that require a power computer (to run a blocky world!), things that IMO make the game less attractive. Once they'll have killed it, they will go away, looking for the next successful indie game to buy, letting MC carcass rot until 5 years later they pull the plug on the servers to save a few thousand bucks.

People who profit from adding ads to open source games do no damage. The economy is not a zero-sum game, and one must not believe that the money they earn that way would somehow land in devs pockets otherwise.

Actually, if several companies were managing to make profit with Minetest, the likelihood that they would hire devs to work on the OSS code base would be pretty high. I think that is something one should welcome.

I understand all your points there and I also would follow the most of them.
Especially bad for Minetest is:

Chiantos wrote:the minetest team that will not do anything or can not do anything

Of course the team can not do everything. But why does nobody resist against forks in that fields where it is possible? So a normal community would do so as a protest. Purely for morally reasons. Thats a simple and permitted way to save the community at least a bit.
For example people can disallow servers out of Minetest forks in the server list. Who knows these servers, knows that these are 'crowds of rubbish', it is not possible to play there because of strange building everywhere, much lag and the admin which do not promote possibilities to play there for any extent

But not even things like this were done for any safety for the community. Why?
This could be a signal that somebody take benefits of being unsafe against that others use the codes by the Minetest community, isn't it???

Chiantos wrote:have financial problems

Maybe this could be the answer of the somebodies. And of course this must not happen to somebody of the team. But then they have to be honest instead of assaulting the whole Minetest community and the real game.

Chiantos wrote:we are wasting time that could be useful for making money

Contributing to a FOSS project such as Minetest can help finding a well-paid job and new opportunities. I did contribute freely to Minetest during years before I got hired by a company that uses a fork of Minetest. Then I've been formed internally by AAA developers (ex-Nintendo or Ubisoft employees), I travelled abroad for trade shows and I personally offered back code and jobs to well-known people of the community.

Minetest changed my life and I don't think this project would produce as much of opportunities if is was proprietary and closed-source. But there are always people who are fundamentally hostile to business.

if minetest wasen't open source i would problety not be here, cuz the open code let me in to here.

1: play around with coding & mods for fun, you dont mind people can utilize.
2: dont make things able you are against people can utilize.
3: some people want to use my music in theirs games, but it leads to your case, people can do what they want with it, this can end in a nightmare.

I feel like you've missed the whole point of Open Source and Free software. It's about letting the user be in control, allowing them to take up the mantle should the original author abandon it, and being able to know what's going on under the hood. It's about not ruling your user-base with an iron fist, and being able to let creativity take it's course.

Sure, there will be those people who abuse the system, but you've got to outdo them if you can. If you can't, then oh well; they're the dicks, not you. If you put a copyleft license on your code, you can probably DMCA them for violating it. If not then you knew that it could be used in propriety software from the start, which is ok for some projects (like libraries, game engines, etc).

It's a very similar argument to CreativeCommons. If you license your work under CC-BY, then someone can take it and use it in some big production and sell it without giving anything back to you, but they'll need to credit you. "But they could just resell my work!", I hear you say, and while this is true, if they've credited you then it's just more exposure for your original creation. If you really want to put a wrench in those plans though, you can make it CC-BY-SA, which is basically copyleft for media. Then if they don't make theirs under CC-BY-SA too, you can sue them (assuming it's not fair use, but that's a huge grey-area).

benrob0329 wrote: Then if they don't make theirs under CC-BY-SA too, you can sue them (assuming it's not fair use, but that's a huge grey-area).

Plus the fact it will probably cost you about $5,000.00US to sue them because you will need an attorney, and most want that much up front as a retainer fee (just to start)
All for a judge to simply make them disclose the source code, under the same license, and give you credit... not sure if they would award attorney's fees as damages... judges don't usually award this unless the damages are substantial.

The opensource community is not for everyone... and that's "ok" too.
Most who are part, know the risks, and the game...
There are also more restrictive and protective licenses out there one can choose for those who feel "put upon" by free licensing.

On the other hand, I will continue to contribute to open source projects. Why would I do something so stupid, you may ask?

First of all, I've been benefiting from the work of tens of thousands of open source developers for over twenty years now. Almost every piece of software on my many computers is free and open. I've gotten immeasurable value out of this vast body of shared knowledge. I owe it to those people to pay it forward.

More importantly, sharing is right. Money is only a tool our ancestors developed to let them share labor more easily. I make a boot; I trade it to you for money; I use the money to buy your produce. Unfortunately, greed has been turned from one of the deadly sins into a near virtue in modern culture, despite the best efforts of all the greatest moral philosophers of history to tell us that wealth is, by its very nature, evil.

No one can fault you for wanting to make a living, but beyond that, we should be sharing. Will that stop the greedy jerks from continuing to be greedy? No, but sociologists tell us that the majority of people will tend to follow the example set by the majority. So I'm doing my part to make it a better one.

People abuse the GPL. And if it's not a big company then... there's little you can do. The only thing is to harass the bad guys. In Googleplay you can denounce, not the creator of the theft, but the platform.

But it should be done by the chiefs of the community.

Even legal forks should be audited if the source code contains the ads, to see if they spy or not. The GPL requires that if you make ads that part of the code is published as well, unless in the case of that is a mod.

But one thing is clear Chiantos, if you don't agree then leave OpenSource, the rules are clear and you have to accept them. You can not criticize the forks, but in any case those who do bad practices.

But it's not bad practice for them to make money at the expense of others. It is the essence of OpenSource. If you want you can take their project and make another parallel.

WITH OPENSOURCE YOU CAN MAKE MONEY. THE EASIEST WAY IS TO PLACE ADS. THIS IS ALLOWED.

Minetest is an open source engine, so anyone can take it and make a closed game. See Kidscode.

So Chiantos, create your own engine, game and that's it. Or make your Minetest game commercial, it has quality.

runs wrote:But it's not bad practice for them to make money at the expense of others.

Yes it is. It is completely identical if it is legal or not, this is bad. We all can think as far as this with our brain.

They are not making money "at your expense". They make money "thanks to you". That's different: They are not taking away money you would be doing otherwise. You do something for free, and they make money out of the free stuff you are giving. You would not be a cent richer if they did zero money. It is not at your expense.

Yes. But some people of the Minetest team support the forkers, athough there are people, who don't want to support the forkers. They decide to develop things Open source, but for certain they would decide to support other things, useful things. And not people who wants to get money without doing something, or doing something little with the work of others (Yes I know, this is the sense of Open source).

Only for people, who get the deposit back again it is/would be fair.

waldberg wrote:then they have to be honest instead of assaulting the whole Minetest community and the real game.

The Minetest Community doesn't get poor in view on money, but in view on players and good servers...
Some Examples: Some for players have hacks they just press a button and fly.
Others are incompatible with minetest servers.
Some are spammed with advertising which is also bad for the community if some players get interrupted while playing.

Lejo wrote:The Minetest Community doesn't get poor in view on money, but in view on players and good servers...
Some Examples: Some for players have hacks they just press a button and fly.
Others are incompatible with minetest servers.
Some are spammed with advertising which is also bad for the community if some players get interrupted while playing.

It doesn't matter, OpenSource is the way it is. It's called freedom.

Minetest is the creation of celeron. Imagine if he hadn't set it as GPL, then we couldn't play it now. No community. Nothing.

Is celeron rich? Does it have a Ferrari car? Why did OpenSource put it? Is he silly because of it? According to you all he did wrong, he must have marketed it and become rich.

No, I don’t say that Open Source is Bad just that some people „abuse“ it.
Some people should be cared with instead of ignoring the „bad players“.
I’m just talking about the way to centralise the community and Progress.
Why improving a fork if you can also improve Minetest? We don’t need a separate game you could also sell Minetest as Minemastet with no changes. That’s Open Source.

Lejo wrote:No, I don’t say that Open Source is Bad just that some people „abuse“ it.
Some people should be cared with instead of ignoring the „bad players“.
I’m just talking about the way to centralise the community and Progress.
Why improving a fork if you can also improve Minetest? We don’t need a separate game you could also sell Minetest as Minemastet with no changes. That’s Open Source.

No, OpenSource is just that, the possibility of doing infinite forks.

Forks have millions of downloads because they give players what they want: A fun free game. The rest is accessory and in any case annoying (announcements, bad servers, glitches, etc.).

Instead you have to make better open source games and stop crying <- Say it not to anyone in particular, but to the whole community, no offense.

And I'm not going to argue anymore, it's just my opinion and people can dislike me. :-D

A point that took me a while to understand is that OSS success is not about the number of users but about the number of developers it attracts.

A commercial software needs client to survive. There is no way to pay the devs without them. The focus is on making the users happy. An OSS project is about keeping its devs happy, it can survive without users. So far, I have found the game imensly fun as a developer and I think that as long as it stays this way it will be survive. Sure, having more users and catering to their needs would be nice, but it is far less essential for OSS than for a commercial software.

duane wrote:More importantly, sharing is right. Money is only a tool our ancestors developed to let them share labor more easily. I make a boot; I trade it to you for money; I use the money to buy your produce. Unfortunately, greed has been turned from one of the deadly sins into a near virtue in modern culture, despite the best efforts of all the greatest moral philosophers of history to tell us that wealth is, by its very nature, evil.

No one can fault you for wanting to make a living, but beyond that, we should be sharing. Will that stop the greedy jerks from continuing to be greedy? No, but sociologists tell us that the majority of people will tend to follow the example set by the majority. So I'm doing my part to make it a better one.

It sounds a little bit subversive... And I'm not so sure that all or even most of the philosophers you've mentioned were so radical about wealth. Well, in fact wealth has some evil trait, but it can't be proved on either philosophical or religious grounds, but based on psychology.

Making a living really isn't enough for most of us; we want to save some money to buy better homes, for future use or for our children, family and so on. You can't expect people to 'start sharing' just at the moment they appeased their hunger. What may be and often is wrong is what the incentives to become rich are for many wealthy people. And it's when they pursue more and more money not just to secure their future, but to gain and exercise power money bring and to subdue weaker people to its might, to prove themselves better in a race for influence and esteem which accompany wealth in virtually all societies, that money start to reveal its darkest side. However there's nothing wrong with becoming rich thanks truly to one's merits, ingenuity and workmanship.

On psychological grounds you can prove that, indeed, wealth bears some evil scar. Because wealth isn't an absolute value; it's always relative. In other words, the rich can be regarded as wealthy ones only against the background of poverty. And this is why numerous psychological researches show that wealthy people all over the world (and especially in countries with strong traditions of liberal capitalism) are generally reluctant to all forms of re-distribution requiring higher taxes, or even more specifically, are against any forms of social solidarity and help to the poorest. It's because it would make their gilded glamour shine less.

duane wrote:On the other hand, I will continue to contribute to open source projects. Why would I do something so stupid, you may ask?

First of all, I've been benefiting from the work of tens of thousands of open source developers for over twenty years now. Almost every piece of software on my many computers is free and open. I've gotten immeasurable value out of this vast body of shared knowledge. I owe it to those people to pay it forward.

That's what I agree in full. I've spent thousands of hours playing free games and I'd like, in the future, to add a small contribution to the open-source community just to feel honest. And after all, information is free (or will be such) by its very nature.

Game is the essence of life; therefore every good game makes life better.

voxelproof wrote:Well, in fact wealth has some evil trait, but it can't be proved on either philosophical or religious grounds, but based on psychology.

Philosophy is just the beginnings of the science of morality, which our species hasn't bothered to develop very much. It's just as valid as early attempts to qualify physics were.

voxelproof wrote:Making a living really isn't enough for most of us; we want to save some money to buy better homes, for future use or for our children, family and so on. You can't expect people to 'start sharing' just at the moment they appeased their hunger.

I didn't make myself clear enough. When I say wealth, I mean more money than you'll ever need. Everybody needs a retirement of some sort. Everyone needs emergency money. But beyond that, it's just numbers. Most wealthy people don't even seem to enjoy their money -- they're constantly trying to find something new to spend it on. I could see someone having a million in the bank, but beyond that?

In kindergarten they try to teach you that if you have more crayons than you can use, you share them. At some point, people seem to forget that lesson.

Being angry because someone took the work you intended to give away seems a bit pointless. If they did something that took fame away from you, maybe you should ask, "Why didn't I do that first, and make it a part of the project?" On the other hand, if what they're doing is really immoral, maybe we need to focus more on changing the laws so that it's harder to get away with that.

voxelproof wrote:Well, in fact wealth has some evil trait, but it can't be proved on either philosophical or religious grounds, but based on psychology.

Philosophy is just the beginnings of the science of morality, which our species hasn't bothered to develop very much. It's just as valid as early attempts to qualify physics were.

Exactly. History of philosophy is full of flawed, sometimes horrific ideas about society and the human nature which, when influencing real politics made a lot of harm and sometimes were even used as a justification for the worst crimes against humanity.

duane wrote:

voxelproof wrote:Making a living really isn't enough for most of us; we want to save some money to buy better homes, for future use or for our children, family and so on. You can't expect people to 'start sharing' just at the moment they appeased their hunger.

I didn't make myself clear enough. When I say wealth, I mean more money than you'll ever need. Everybody needs a retirement of some sort. Everyone needs emergency money. But beyond that, it's just numbers. Most wealthy people don't even seem to enjoy their money -- they're constantly trying to find something new to spend it on. I could see someone having a million in the bank, but beyond that?

In kindergarten they try to teach you that if you have more crayons than you can use, you share them. At some point, people seem to forget that lesson.

Being angry because someone took the work you intended to give away seems a bit pointless. If they did something that took fame away from you, maybe you should ask, "Why didn't I do that first, and make it a part of the project?" On the other hand, if what they're doing is really immoral, maybe we need to focus more on changing the laws so that it's harder to get away with that.

Yup, I totally agree :) Nevertheless I suppose that having a few billion bucks makes their possessor hopped-up with that awesome feeling of power and the impossibility to spend them isn't very much an issue. Maybe just having is enough, who knows? ;)

I think that the problem this thread is about is more about the ineeficiency of the legal systems to defend creators of Open Source content, and I wholly agree that this is frustrating and discouraging. However I don't agree that this is a case against Open Source in general, more a contribution to the discussion about a better organisation of Open Source communities so that laws protecting creators were effective. Without such legal protection Open Source is doomed to decay. Maybe this is what 'big corpo' would be very happy about.

Game is the essence of life; therefore every good game makes life better.

voxelproof wrote:I think that the problem this thread is about is more about the ineeficiency of the legal systems to defend creators of Open Source content, and I wholly agree that this is frustrating and discouraging.

Inefficiency?
How so?
The fact is, these sort of things are viewed as somewhat trivial (civil) on this level.
Were you a large corporation, which had millions of $ invested into all of this... then it would be "something"

For Pete's sake, the court systems are backlogged enough barely keeping victims safe from predatory types today.
What is being discussed here, on this level... is petty to them.

Large opensource organizations have attorneys waiting in the wings to handle situation such as this as well as any other legal matters, just as closed source corps do. Ubuntu/Canonical, for an example has an entire legal team.
As I am sure Clear Linux does too (just ask sofar)

As it is, such a lawsuit as this would only cost you $, to be frustrated when a judge simply orders the offender to fix the attributions and following the guidelines of the original license.
And I doubt any legal fees or damages would be awarded in such a case.

Normally, it is enough to simply contact the individuals offending, approaching them in a calm, cool, reasonable, and adult manner, and 99% of the time, they will apologize and fix the problem.
Of course, this does not mean, they will no longer be able to make a small profit from using your free software.

And that's the other point I'd like to make here.
Most of these fly-by-forks are not making a killing with this method, unless they are involved in a few of them and even then...
It is most likely just one of many ways they make money... and all those little somethings, add up in the end.

Even using a NC clause is not 100% fool proof.
All you can do is keep your eye out and follow up on tips from others on such matters regarding your work.

As far as I'm concerned... the free/opensource software thing has not worked out for you... that's too bad.
But to get so dramatic about it and finding flaw in the licensing, etc. is a bit silly to me.
You're upset and frustrated, and that's ok... the simple fact of the matter is, it is evident you either need to just use more restrictive (yet free) licenses or, just go closed source...
No big deal either way.
I honestly feel you may be allowing this to upset you far more than it actually should.
The offender fixed the problem. Their attitude toward you over it is unimportant, as long as they fixed it.
Life moves on

There are two types of people in this world...
Nice folks...
And assholes
That's life